RESERVED ON: 29-07-2011
ig PRONOUNCED ON : 08-08-2011
JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):-
1) By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the

above mentioned matters together as the same involve common issues.

2) The first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1430 of 2011) is
filed by the student who has passed her 12th Standard examination
(Senior School Certificate 2011) from Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) with 88.4% marks, but has not succeeded in getting
admission in Government Law College at Mumbai (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'GLC'). The grievance in this petition, as
originally filed, was in respect of the method adopted by respondent-

college of deducting 5% marks of candidates, who have passed the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:17 :::
11 143011
qualifying examination from the Board other than the Maharashtra
Secondary School Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra
Board"), for preparation of merit list of students to be admitted in the
First Year of Five years Law course. It is stated that the said petitioner
was desirous of getting admission in the GLC. For that reason, she
obtained a Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate from her
MGD Girls' School at Jaipur. Thereafter, she filled up the form for
taking admission in Five Years Law Course in GLC. According to the
said Petitioner, in spite of having secured such good marks, her name
did not find place even in the third merit list published on 4th July,
2011. To her utter surprise, she noticed that the candidates who have
secured less percentage than 88.4%, their names were mentioned in the
said list. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that since she has
passed 12th standard from a Board other than Maharashtra Board, as in
the case of similarly placed candidates, her 5% marks have been
deducted while reckoning her comparative merit position in the merit
list. On further enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the GLC
resorted to such method on the basis of instructions issued by the Joint
Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department of Government
of Maharashtra vide communication dated 14th June, 2011. The said
communication is originally in Marathi. The petitioner has provided
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:17 :::
12 143011
true translation thereof at Exhibit 'D' to the petition. However, the
translation is inaccurate. We would reproduce the original Marathi as
well as official translation of the said communication. The same reads
thus:

As per the letter under reference on the abovenoted
subject, it is informed that since the year 1996, as per
practice, a provision of five percent additional marks limit is
made for the students passed 12th (Standard) from
Educational Boards other than Maharashtra Boards, for
getting admission to five years course in the Government
Law College, Mumbai. In this regard, the local Management
committee of the College established as per the Universities
Act, took a decision, from time to time, and in view of the
objection of Bar Council of India in this regard, in the year
2005, took a conscious decision to keep a limit of five per
cent, for five years Law Course. While taking the said
decision, it was also elaborately discussed on the issue as to
whether this would result into discrimination in respect of
the students passed 12th Standard examination from
Maharashtra Board or else, which has been noted down in
the minutes.

From the documents submitted to the Government it
appears that following members were participated in the
meetings dated 17th April, 2006 and 13th April, 2005.

In this regard, Shri Sadavarte had lodged one
complaint with Human Rights Commission. However, on
perusing the order dated 12th February, 2011 of Human
Rights Commission, it is seen that it (Human Rights
Commission) has neither issued order or made
recommendation as to whether such system (practice) should
be kept continued or stopped. However, the Commission has
suggested that the order may be obtained from the State
Government or University, as the case may be. And the
Commission has mentioned that the said complaint does
come within the purview of the Human Rights Commission
and the same is not worth taking into consideration by the
Commission.

To pass orders on the issues namely - to give
admission in the college, to keep reservation in that regard,
management share (quota), etc., are the powers pertaining to
the University. Hence, the said subject of Law College falls
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
16 143011
within the ambit of the University, an action of submitting
appropriate proposal to the University and to obtain orders
thereon may be taken and the Human Rights Commission
may be informed to that effect. In the meantime, prevailing
procedure shall be continued.

3) The said petitioner thus having realised that she may not get
admission in the Respondent No.2 college rushed to this Court by way
of the present Writ Petition, which was verified by her on 8.7.2011 but
presented in the Registry of this Court on 11.7.2011. In the Petition
originally filed, the only grievance made is about the unfairness in
deducting 5% marks of students who have passed 12th standard
examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board. It is
contended that the merit list of candidates is prepared on the basis of
directions contained in the above said letter which has no force of law
and in any case, such artificial distinction is arbitrary and illegal.

According to the said petitioner, the State of Maharashtra, at best,
could reserve certain percentage for students from Maharashtra, that
too by making a law. However, it is not open to deduct 5% marks of
students merely because those students have passed the qualifying
examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board. The next
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
17 143011
ground in the writ petition is that the policy of deducting 5% marks of
students who have passed the qualifying examination from Boards
other than the Maharashtra Board is in violation of the fundamental
right of the citizens to travel and settle down in any part of India. On
that basis, the said petitioner prayed for the following substantive
reliefs in the original writ petition:

"a) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction he
issued calling for the records and files of the case and after going
into the legality and validity of the decision contained in letter
dated 14th June 2011 (Exhibit "D") to deduct 5% marks while
giving admissions to students who have passed their XIIth
standard examination from any board other than Maharashtra
Secondary School Board, quash and set aside the same.

b) That writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction be issued ordering and directing respondents 1 and 2 to
give admission to the petitioner in the first year law course on
the basis of actual marks secured by the petitioner and not after
deducting 5% of marks.

c) That the respondent 1 and 2 be ordered and directed to
carry out if necessary, fresh admission process for 1st year law
course and without deducting 5% marks of students who have
passed XIIth standard examinations of any board other than
Maharashtra Secondary School Board.

when the Court proceeded to record the statement made by the
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State as well as the
Law College. The said order reads thus:

"The learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for the
Government of Maharashtra states that the Government of
Maharashtra withdraws the letter dated 14-6-2011, copy of
which is at Exh.G to the petition.

2. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner that in the Ordinance Nos.5077 and
5078 framed by the University regulating admission to the three
Years LL.B. Degree Course and Five Years LL.B. Degree
Course there is no provision for making reservation for
Backward Class candidates and other categories. However, the
Prospectus issued by the University provides for reservation for
Backward Class candidates as also other categories. He also
pointed out that there is no provision for faculty wise reservation
of seats in any Law or in any instrument having the force of
Law. That in five years course any seat will be reserved
faculty wise is also not mentioned in the Prospectus.

3. The learned AGP appearing for the State and the Law
College stated that in view of what has been pointed out by the
Petitioner, the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 will rework the
admission to all the seats in five years course and shall consider
the claim of the Petitioner also in accordance with law.
Statement is accepted.

4. In our opinion, in view of this statement, it will be
appropriate to grant one week time to the Respondents to do the
needful. Put up after one week."

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::

19 143011
5) The matter was then moved on 19.7.2011 on the basis of a

praecipe. However, no order was passed on the said praecipe.

Thereafter, the companion petition was produced by the petitioners
therein on 20.7.2011 praying for interim protection as they
apprehended that their admission was likely to be cancelled by the
College on the basis of the statement recorded in the order dated
14.7.2011. The said Writ Petition being Writ Petition (Lodging) No.
1459 of 2011 was ordered to be placed on 21.7.2011 alongwith the
former petition.

6) The second Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1459 of 2011 has been
filed by 43 students of the College who have already secured admission
to the first year of Five years law course on the basis of the merit list
notified by the GLC from time to time. According to these petitioners,
the College ought not to have made the statement before the Court to
jeopardise their interests, that too without giving them any opportunity
or prior notice whatsoever. Accordingly, the petitioners in the second
writ petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

"a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,
direction in the nature of certiorari be passed in respect of the
papers and proceedings pertaining to the admissions given to the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
20 143011
students in the Government Law College, first year of five years
B.L.S.LL.B. Course to cancel, recall / expunge the said
statement made on behalf of the Ld. AGP in the said Bombay
High Court, OOCJ, Writ Petition (L) No.1385 of 2011.

b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction and order in the nature of mandamus be issued ordering
and directing respondent No.1 to set aside, cancel and/or not to
disturb the admissions granted to the petitioners students.

students who have already been admitted to the first year of five years
Law course in the GLC, other similarly placed students have filed four
separate Chamber Summonses in the former writ petition essentially
for impleading them as respondents therein. Even these applicants
support the stand of the petitioners in the second Writ Petition filed by
43 students already admitted to the course. In each of these Chamber
Summons, the concerned applicants have stated on affidavit that their
admission to the first year of Five years Law course should not be
disturbed and at any rate at the instance of the petitioner in the first writ
petition, who waited to file the said writ petition till their admission
process was completed. The said applicants in their respective
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
21 143011
affidavits have further stated that each of them having secured good
marks on the basis of which they could have got admission in any other
College and even to professional courses, which option they have given
up as they got admission in the GLC. As a result, any adverse order
by the Court, at this stage, would cause them irreparable loss as they
would not only be thrown out of the GLC but may not be in a position
to get admission to any other course at this belated stage since the
academic year of all other courses including the Five years law course
has already commenced since long. All these applicants have prayed
for dismissal of the first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.1430 of
2011.

8) As a consequence of the plea taken by the applicants in
the Chamber Summonses and the cross writ petition filed by the 43
students, the petitioner in the former Writ Petition decided to amend
her Writ Petition to urge further grounds to challenge the admission
process and also pray for further substantive reliefs. The Court on
21.7.2011 allowed the petitioner in the former petition to amend her
Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said liberty, the said petitioner has added
further grounds. On 21st July, 2011, when all these mattes were listed
for hearing, attention of the Court was invited to a notice issued by the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
22 143011
In-charge Principal of the College on the basis of her understanding of
the order of this Court dated 14.7.2011. The said notice at Exhibit 'E'
of Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2011 reads thus:

"NOTICE
Pursuant to the order dated 14thJuly 2011 passed by
the Hon.Division Bench of Hon.Justice Shri Deshmukh
and Hon. Justice Shri. Ketkar in Writ Petition No. (L)
1385 of 2011, it is hereby informed that the entire
admission process for the V Year 1st Year LL.B. has been
directed to be reworked as per University Ordinance NO.
05078.

All students who have been admitted / provisionally
admitted should make a note.

Regular classes for V Year 1st Year will
commence/resume after the Hon. High Court order.

Date: 14th July 2011
I/c. PRINCIPAL"

9) In the context of this notice, grievance was made by the
counsel appearing for the students of the College already admitted to
first year of Five Years Law Course. Considering their grievance, the
Court passed the following order dated 21st July, 2011:

2. We are informed by the Counsel appearing for the Respondent
College that the reworking of the merit list is in progress and it may take
some time to finalise the same. We hope and trust that the said exercise will
be completed not later than one week from today. The reworked merit list
be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing alongwith an
affidavit of an authorised officer of the College. All questions raised in the
respective petitions as well as by interventionists will be considered on its
own merits at the appropriate stage. In the meantime, however, the
question of stopping the classes of the first year LL.B. 5 year course does
not arise. The classes can continue with clear understanding that the
students already admitted until the passing of the order dated 14.7.2011 will
have to abide by the final decision in the respective writ petitions.

3. In view of this order, the In-Charge Principal, who is present in
Court, assures to immediately withdraw the Circular issued on 14.7.2011
and notify that the concerned classes will be commenced from tomorrow for
the students already admitted to the course."

10) As per the amendment carried out in the former writ
petition, it is now contended by the said petitioner that the impugned
circular dated 14.6.2011 is not issued by the State Government in
exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, it has no force of law. Further, the said circular is
implemented only in GLC and not in any other Law Colleges. Thus, it
results in discrimination which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. It is further contended that the impugned circular dated 14th
June, 2011 is not based on any data to indicate that the students who
pass qualifying examination from the Board other than the Maharashtra
Board get liberal marks. Thus, there was no material to justify the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
24 143011
deduction of 5% marks of the students who passed the qualifying
examination from the Boards other than the Maharashtra Board.

Moreover, the other Boards such as CBSE and ICSE are not even
consulted nor any basic data is collected from the said two Boards.

The next ground taken by way of amendment is that the Mumbai
University has passed an Ordinance in exercise of powers under
Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The relevant
Ordinance for admission to the first year of Five years Law course, is
Ordinance No.5077. That does not provide for deduction of 5% marks
of the students who have passed their HSC examination from the
Boards other than the Maharashtra Board. In addition, it is stated that
the prospectus issued by the GLC for the year 2011-2012 which refers
to the eligibility criteria also does not provide for deduction of 5%
marks. Further, the Ordinance No.5077 does not provide for
reservation of 50% seats for reserved category candidates. Thus, the
reservation of 50% seats provided by the GLC was in violation of the
said Ordinance No.5077. It is then contended that neither the
prospectus nor the impugned circular dated 14.6.2011 provides that the
admission to the first year of Five years law course be made on faculty-

wise basis which is the method followed in preparation of the merit
lists by the College. It is further stated that the reservation provided
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
25 143011
for widow/deserted girl students (self candidates) is without application
of mind and further that the condition specified in the prospectus of
producing original caste certificate by the students is contrary to the
decision of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. On the basis of
the above additional grounds, the petitioner in the former petition has
prayed for following additional substantive reliefs:

"c1) that a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction be issued ordering and directing the respondent No.1
and 2
i. To carryout fresh admission process by not
reserving 50% of the seats in first year of five year law
course for backward category candidates.
ii. Not to give admission in first year of five year law
course by providing for quota for different faculties such
as Arts, Commerce, Science, etc.
iii. To give admission to the first year of five year law
course strictly as per ordinance No.5077.
iv. Not to provide for reservation for widow/deserted
girl students (self candidates)"

d2) ....."
11) Accordingly, both the abovesaid Petitions and the

Chamber Summonses were notified for hearing on 28.7.2011. On that
day, the Counsel appearing for the College produced the reworked
merit list. The GLC prepared four sets of merit lists. One, the general
merit list without deducting 5% marks and without bifurcating
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
26 143011
faculties. The remaining three lists are without deducting 5% marks
but facultywise i.e. Arts, Science and Commerce respectively.

The said lists were made over to the Counsel appearing for the
respective parties and to the Court. At the request of parties, the
hearing of the matter was deferred to next day. Accordingly, the
hearing of both the petitions and Chamber Summonses proceeded
together on 29th July, 2011. During the arguments, the Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in the former writ petition made a point that
the respondents, in particular the College, was offering justification
without filing any reply affidavit. Moreover, the College having made
statement before the Court on the earlier occasion, it was not open to it
to contend to the contrary. In the first place, the petitioner in the
former petition has not chosen to file any reply-affidavit to counter the
assertions made in the affidavit in support of the respective Chamber
Summonses. As a result, the factual position asserted in the said
affidavits and more so the documents appended to the respective
Chamber Summonses can be relied to answer the controversy, even if
the Government or the college has not filed any reply-affidavit in the
former Writ Petition. Further, considering the urgency of the matter,
the parties, however, agreed to proceed with the hearing on the basis
of the documents already on record. It was understood by all
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
27 143011
concerned that the question as to whether the College can be allowed to
take a stand contrary to the one stated in the earlier order was a matter
which could be answered at the appropriate stage. It was also made
clear to the parties that the documents on which reliance is placed by
the respondents or the applicants in Chamber Summonses, the
correctness thereof can be ascertained on the basis of the original
record produced in Court by the officers of the college / university.

Moreover, as the issues raised by the petitioner were general in nature,
the same could be answered on the basis of documents already on
record. With this clear understanding, the matter was fully argued by
the Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

12) The first question is about the effect of the statement
made by the Counsel for the College, as recorded in order dated 14th
July, 2011. Going by the plain wording of the said order, it is noticed
that the first statement made by the AGP was that the Government was
withdrawing the letter dated 14th June, 2011. So far as this statement
is concerned, let us examine as to whether it would make any
difference. The letter dated 14.6.2011 issued under the signature of
Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra merely restates the
position which was obtaining since year 1996 and more so, with
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
28 143011
reference to the decisions of the Advisory Committee of the College
dated 13th April, 2005 and 17th April, 2006. This communication is
obviously in response to the letter sent by the In-charge Principal of the
GLC dated 4th June, 2011 seeking guidance from the higher authority.

Further, it refers to the order of the Human Rights Commission dated
12.2.2011 and observes that the said order does not in any manner deal
with the question as to whether the arrangement of preparing merit list
of the candidates to be admitted to the first year of five years law
course in the College by deducting 5% marks should be continued or
otherwise. It is then stated that the present arrangement be continued
till appropriate instructions are given by the University or the State
Government. Even if this letter has been withdrawn by the
respondents, that would not affect the admission process already
proceeded with by the GLC on the basis of the prevailing norms which
were in force since year 1996. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have
not chosen to challenge the decision taken in the year 1996 by the
concerned authorities on the basis of which the arrangement of
preparing merit list of candidates by deducting 5% marks of candidates
who have passed the qualifying examination from the Boards other
than Maharashtra School Board was adopted. Neither the decisions of
the Advisory Committee of the Respondent College dated
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
29 143011
13th April, 2005 or 17th April, 2006 as the case may be, have been
challenged by the Petitioner. So long as the admission process was
undertaken in conformity with the prevailing norms, the withdrawal of
the communication dated 14.6.2011 issued under the signature of Joint
Secretary referred to above will not make any difference. Thus, the
first statement made by the AGP does not militate against the
respondents or the students who have already been admitted in the
GLC by following the procedure which was in force since year 1996
and in particular based on the decisions of the Advisory Committee
referred to above.

13) The next statement of the A.G.P. recorded in the said
order is in response to the issues raised by the advocate for the
Petitioner in the former petition at the time of hearing of that petition
on 14th July, 2011. It refers to the contention of the said Petitioner that
the Ordinance Nos. 5077 and 5078 framed by the University to regulate
the admission to the law courses do not make any provision for
reservation for backward class candidates and other categories. In spite
of that, the prospectus of the University provides for reservation for
backward class candidates and other categories. The advocate for the
petitioner had also pointed out to the Court that the facultywise
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
30 143011
reservation of seats is not provided for in any law or in any instrument
having the force of law nor it is so referred to in the prospectus. With
reference to the said submission, the AGP appearing for the State and
the college made statement that the said respondents would rework the
admission to all the seats in the five years law course and would
consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.

14

Even on a fair reading of this statement, it cannot be
construed to mean that the said respondents have conceded before the
Court that the admission process which is already completed and on the
basis of which the admitted students have even started attending the
lectures from 4th July, 2011 was to be treated as cancelled and de novo
admission process was to be commenced. This statement, however, is
an assurance given to the Court of preparing a fresh merit list, keeping
in mind the submissions of the petitioner in the former petition.

Further, after such exercise was undertaken the matter could be
examined further by the Court on merits. Indeed, neither the State nor
the respondent College could have taken a stand which were to affect
the crystallised rights in favour of the students who have already been
admitted upon complying the necessary formalities on the basis of the
merit list published from time to time before 14th July, 2011.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::

31 143011
Admittedly, none of the admitted students were parties to the said
petition either in their individual capacity or, for that matter, in
representative capacity; nor were given opportunity by the State or the
College before making such statement. In our opinion, therefore, the
statement made on behalf of the State and the College even if it is to be
treated as a peremptory statement, was only to assure the Court that
fresh merit list will be drawn or reworked on the basis of the issues
raised by the Petitioner in the former petition. No more and no less.

At any rate, the said statement cannot bind the students already
admitted to the course who were not represented before the Court.

Besides, what is relevant to notice, is that, now, the students who have
already been admitted to the first year of five years Law course in the
respondent-College from amongst the candidates included in the merit
lists published by the College from time to time before 14th July, 2011
as well as the students who have legitimate expectation of getting
admission on the basis of the procedure followed by the College of
providing 5% deduction of marks and faculty-wise merit position, have
rushed to this Court by way of Chamber Summonses and a substantive
writ petition. They filed those proceedings soon after they realised that
the In-charge Principal of the Respondent College hastened to issue the
notice dated 14th July, 2011 (reproduced in paragraph 8 above),
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
32 143011
informing all concerned that the admission process for the first year of
five years law course will be reworked as per the University Ordinance
No.05078 and the students who have been admitted / provisionally
admitted should take notice thereof. The said notice further declares
that the regular classes of the first year Law course will commence
only after the High Court order. The said students have rushed to this
Court questioning the said notice and also asserting that the admission
process already completed cannot be unsettled without considering
their stand. In this backdrop, the matter will have to be examined
further.

15) Reverting to the statement of the AGP for the State and
college recorded in order dated 14th July, 2011, it also refers to Ordinance
No. 5078. On the basis of the said statement, the In-charge Principal of
the Government Law College issued notice dated 14th July, 2011.

It refers to the fact that the entire admission process has been ordered to
be re-worked by the Court as per University Ordinance No. O5078. In
the first place, no such direction has been issued by the Court in the said
order dated 14th July, 2011. The Court merely recorded the statement
made by the counsel for the State and the Law College as referred to
above, and went on to accept the same.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::

33 143011
16) Be that as it may, the In-charge Principal of the college, on

complete misunderstanding of the statement made before the Court,
decided to re-work the entire merit list as per Ordinance 5078. Let us
turn to the said Ordinance. It reads as follows:-

"For admission to the First Semester of 3 years LL.B. or 5
years LL.B. Course of the candidates securing more than
40% but less than 45% of marks at the respective qualifying
examinations (with further 5% relaxation for the candidates
belonging to SC/ST categories) the University may conduct
Common Eligibility Examination. The Common Eligibility
Examination may be conducted either through University
Department of Law or through any of the assenting Law
Colleges affiliated to the University of Mumbai on behalf of
the University of Mumbai as shall be recommended by the
Board of Studies in Law. The candidates passing in such
examinations shall become eligible for admission to the
respective Law Courses and may be admitted in any of the
Law Colleges conducting the respective Courses, subject to
the availability of the admissions / seats in the College for
the Course and the Class."

17) On plain language of this Ordinance, we have no hesitation
in taking the view that the same cannot be made the basis to re-work the
existing merit list. This Ordinance envisages conducting of common
eligibility examination for the candidates who have secured specified
marks; and, depending on the results of the said examination, the said
candidates may be admitted to the course in the order of merits, subject
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
34 143011
to availability of seats in the college. It is neither the case of the
University nor of the college that it intends to have such common
eligibility examination of all the aspiring candidates. Moreover, it is too
late in the day for the said authorities to conduct common eligibility
examination after the commencement of the academic year in July, 2011.

On the other hand, the admission process in question has been taken
forward on the basis of the marks obtained by the aspiring candidates in
the respective Board examination(s) and not on the basis of common
eligibility examination, which is peculiar to Ordinance 5078. Even for
this reason, the issues now raised by the interveners / applicants in the
former petition and the cross petition filed by the students, who are
already admitted and/or likely to be affected by any new arrangement,
will have to be considered on its own merits. Thus, the unilateral
statement made by the State or the college before the Court cannot affect
the rights of the admitted students, and more so, when the order dated
14th July, 2011 is not an order issuing direction to the college to cancel
the admissions already granted, much less upon adjudicating the
contentious issues on merits. For the aforesaid reasons, the stand taken
by the petitioner in the former petition that the State and the college are
bound by the statement recorded in order dated 14th July, 2011 does not
take the matter any further.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::

35 143011
18) The students, who have already been admitted and/or likely

to be affected by any new arrangement at this juncture are justified in
relying on the exposition of the Full Bench of our High Court in the case
of Nachane Ashwini Shivram & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, reported
in 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 234. The Full Bench examined the question raised
before it, as to the efficacy of the decision of the Court which is passed
without giving opportunity of being heard to the students, who were
likely to be affected by the order, can such order not suffer from the vice
of being void ab initio and needs to be ignored. That question has been
answered in the affirmative by the Full Bench.

19) As aforesaid, in the present case, even on strict reading of
the contents of order dated 14th July, 2011 the same cannot be construed
to mean that the Court has issued any order or direction as such, much
less of cancelling the already concluded admission process. Similarly,
the statements of AGP as recorded in the order dated 14th July, 2011, by
no standards, result in cancellation of the admissions already completed
till 14th July, 2011. So long as such formal order is not passed by the
Court, it is inconceivable as to how the respondents in the writ petition,
and more particularly the students likely to be affected, are estopped
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
36 143011
from contending that the admission process completed till 14th July, 2011
was legal and proper. Whether that plea should be accepted or otherwise
is a matter to be answered by the Court on its own merits. In other
words, the two statements made by the AGP as recorded in the order
dated 14.7.2011 cannot come in the way of the students who have
already been admitted or the candidates who have legitimate expectation
of getting admission upon following the existing procedure. It is open to
them to argue that no interference at the instance of the petitioner in
former petition was warranted, as the procedure followed by the College
for preparing the merit list was just and valid.

20) We may now, therefore, turn to the preliminary issue raised
by the interveners / applicants in companion Chamber Summonses and
the petitioners in the cross petition. According to them, the petitioner in
former petition is not entitled for any relief whatsoever and her petition
should be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of laches. According
to them, the merit lists prepared by the college were in adherence to the
procedure which is being followed since 1996. In any case, the college
had announced its intention to follow the stated procedure which was
duly published and displayed on the notice board of the college, as also
on the College Website referring to the fact that the candidates from
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
37 143011
Boards other than Maharashtra Board have to secure 5% more marks
than the cut-off percentage for Maharashtra Board and of providing
reservation up to 50% for reserved category from Maharashtra as per the
Government Resolution. Even the notice displayed on the notice board
of the college before commencement of the admission process clearly
spells out the intent of the college about the method of preparation of
merit lists. Thus, the admission procedure to be followed by the college
was in public domain. The print-out of the information published on the
college website was produced before us. In addition, the notice
published on the college notice board (Exhibit 'H' to Chamber Summons
No. 205 of 2011), reads thus:-

3% Reservation as per University Circular No. Aff. /
Recog. / 207 of 2005 dt. 30/5/2005 for the categories as
under

1. Ward of Central/State Government (sic) on Transfer.

2. Ward of Defence Personnel in Service/Ex Serviceman.

3. Students having excellent performance at State/National
level in sports & or Cultural events.

4. Physically handicapped/Disabled Students.

5. Widow/deserted female Students (personally).

6. Ward of Freedom Fighters.

ADMISSION WILL BE GIVEN STRICTLY ON
MERIT
Last year i.e. Academic year 2010-11 (Five Years Law
course)
Cut-off percentage in open category for students from
Maharashtra State Board
Commerce Science Arts
84.50 80.00 78.00
Cut-off percentage for students from all Other Boards
Commerce Science Arts
89.80 85.00 83.00
Prospectus & Admission Form will be issued after the
declaring the 12th HSC (Maharashtra Board) results,
tentatively around the 1st week of June. Visit the GLC
Website for updates.

I/C Principal"

21) A similar procedure has been notified in respect of
admissions to Three Years Law Course. That position has been stated on
affidavit by the interveners / applicants which has remained
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
39 143011
uncontroverted. Besides, it is stated that the first merit list was published
by the college on 20th June, 2011, which was not only displayed on the
college notice board but also on college website. The first merit list
unambiguously spelt out the procedure adopted by the college for
admissions. That list was followed by the second merit list published on
23rd June, 2011, which was also displayed on the college notice board
and college website. It was followed by third merit list on 27th June,
2011 and fourth merit list on 29th June, 2011. The successive merit lists
issued by the college in respect of aided seats clearly spell out the
procedure followed by the college for preparation of merit lists of
candidates to be admitted in the college. These lists were displayed from
time to time on the college notice board and also on the college website.

The college thereafter issued first merit list in respect of unaided seats on
30th June, 2011 followed by second merit list of unaided seats on 4th July,
2011 and third on 7th July, 2011.

22) In substance, it is the case of the interveners / applicants and
the petitioners in the companion Writ Petition that enough publicity was
given about the procedure to be followed by the college for admission to
first year of Five Years Law Course and each of the aspiring candidates
was made fully familiar with the said procedure. Thus, it is too late for
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
40 143011
the petitioner in the former Writ Petition to approach this Court only on
11th July, 2011, after being convinced that she would not get admission as
per the procedure followed by the college for admission. The Writ
Petition was presented in this Court on 11th July, 2011, much after 207
students were already admitted on the basis of successive merit lists
published by the college, and more so, after the first semester of the
course commenced from 4th July, 2011. Notably, the students, who have
been admitted to the college, whose name found place in the merit lists
published by the college, most of them are students who reside outside
the Mumbai city, as also State of Maharashtra. For that reason, the
explanation offered by the petitioner in the former Writ Petition about
her inaction and delay in filing the Writ Petition is nothing short of an
after-thought plea. And in any case, the settled position cannot be now
unsettled at her instance.

23) Notably, the petitioner in the former Writ Petition has not
made any reference to the notices published by the college from time to
time, which were displayed on the notice board of the college as well as
website of the college much before the admission process actually
commenced, and in particular, before issuance of admission forms, nor
has she made any reference to the fact that the successive merit lists
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:18 :::
41 143011
published by the college were in adherence to the admission procedure
already published by the college. All that the petitioner in the first Writ
Petition asserts in her Writ Petition, is that, she was desirous of taking
admission in Government Law College and she filled up the form. Then
the petitioner goes on to say in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the
third list of admissions was published on 4th July, 2011; and she found
that her name did not find place even in that list, whereas the names of
candidates, who have secured less than 88.4% marks were mentioned
therein and given admission by the college. It is only thereafter she
enquired with the college, when she was told that the merit list was
prepared by deducting 5% marks in respect of candidates who have
passed qualifying examination from Boards other than Maharashtra
Board; and that, at that time, she was given photostat copy of the
impugned decision referred in letter dated 14th June, 2011, which
provides for such deduction. We have no hesitation in taking the view
that the above plea taken by the petitioner in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
writ petition is unacceptable.

24) It is intriguing to note that the said petitioner has chosen to
amend the writ petition after the filing of accompanying Chamber
Summonses in her Writ Petition, but she did not find it proper to deal
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
42 143011
with the above-said objection taken in the affidavit in support of the
Chamber Summonses by amending the writ petition. In other words, it is
indisputable that the college notified the admission procedure well in
advance both on the college notice board as well as college website
which was accessible to all the aspiring candidates; and it can be
reasonably assumed that each of the aspiring candidates was fully
familiar with the said procedure. As a mater of fact, the admission
procedure followed by the college is in place for quite some time.

Suffice it to observe that the petitioner has not disclosed the relevant and
material facts, more so, to explain as to why the petitioner waited till 11th
July, 2011, and allowed the admission process to be taken forward,
culminating in completion of admission of at least 207 candidates out of
240 seats available for admission. It is well established position that, if a
candidate participates in the selection process, with full knowledge of the
drawbacks or illegalities in that selection process, and waits till the
outcome of the said process, cannot be permitted to challenge that
selection process at a later stage on the ground that the same is irregular
or illegal only after he realises that he will not be selected. Applying the
same analogy and considering the vague averments made in the writ
petition, we hold that the former petition suffers from laches, and
deserves to be thrown out at the threshold on that ground alone. In view
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
43 143011
of this finding, no further enquiry into the other questions raised by the
petitioner in former writ petition is warranted.

25) Be that as it may, in the former writ petition, the original
grievance was only with regard to the procedure of deducting 5% marks
of the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from
Boards other than Maharashtra Board. By way of amendment, the said
petitioner has now challenged the provision made for reservation of 50%
of the total seats for reserved category candidates by the college while
preparing the merit lists, and also the preparation of merit lists on
faculty-wise basis. The sum and substance of the grievance of the said
petitioner is that none of the above was permissible, as that mechanism
was not backed by law.

26) We shall, first, deal with the challenge to the reservation
provided by the college to the extent of 50% seats for reserved category
candidates. The college has provided 50% reservation in consonance
with the notice published before commencement of the admission
process to the first year of Five Years Law Course for the academic year
2011-12, which is extracted, in its entirety, in the earlier part of the
judgment. This reservation has been provided as per the directions
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
44 143011
issued by the State Government. Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra
Universities' Act, 1994 is an enabling provision, which envisages that
the University shall adopt Government policy and orders issued from
time to time in regard to the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and other
Backward Classes for the purpose of admission of students in the
affiliated or conducted colleges.

27) The University, in the present case, in furtherance of its
obligation to adopt the Government policy regarding reservation of seats
for admission, had issued Circular No. BCC/29/301/1995 on the
basis of Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 1995. The said
Government Resolution reads thus:-

Government Resolution : Taking into account the
demand for granting special concession on the
ground of Social, Economically and Educationally
Backwardness, from some castes - tribes other than
the community specifically declared as Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the State, vide
Government Resolution, Social Welfare, Cultural
Affairs and Sports Department No. CBC-1494/M.

No. 236/BCC-5, dated 13th June, 1995 and even
numbered Corrigendum dated 15th June 1995,
orders have been issued to include specific castes in
the "Special Backward Category". Those castes,
which have been included in the "Special Backward
Category", a list thereof has been given in
Appendix 'A'.

2. As per the Government Resolution, General
Administration Department No. BCC-1094/ M. No.
68/ 94/16-B, dated 15th June, 1995, orders have
been issued to keep 2% reservation in the
Government/ Semi Government service for "Special
Backward Category".

3. As per the Government Resolution, Higher
and Technical Education and Employment
Department No. USG-1493/ (2428)-UE-4 dated 23rd
June, 1994 and even numbered Corrigendum dated
__ July, 1994, orders have been issued to keep
reservation for admission in the Non-agricultural
Universities and affiliated Government/ Non-
government Arts, Science, Commerce, Education
and other Educational Institutions for Other
Backward Class people. As per the said order
reserved seats have been kept in the proportion of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
49 143011
50% in the Educational Institutions. Now, some
specific castes - tribes have been included in the
"Special Backward Category" hence, by this order
2% seats are kept reserved for the said category, in
all the Educational Institutions under the control of
the Higher and Technical Education Department.
As 2% seats are increased for keeping reserved for
"Special Backward Category", now the proportion
of reserved seats in the Educational Institutions
shall be as mentioned hereinbelow.

4. The said reservation shall be coursewise in
each of the Institutions and the same shall be for

------------ free and for value based seats in their
respective proportions.

The reserved seats should be filled up firstly.
However, though the admission is given on the
reserved seats, as per the request of the said
candidates, reconsideration should be made for
giving admission on some or all unreserved seats,
only for higher choice, in respect of the courses or
institutions of such candidates, as per the merits.

5. igWhile giving admission to the educational
institution, if the candidate of any category is not
found then as such reservation is not carried
forward as a backlog and as the same is required to
be filled up in the same year, such reservation
should be filled up by giving admission to the
candidates from other Category of Backward Class.
For this purpose, an action should be taken as per
the guidelines given in paragraph - 2 Dt/. 27 June,
1974. However, while making provision to fill up
from other category by way of exchange, it should
be seen that the number of Backward Class
Candidates available in such a manner, original
reservation plus number of candidates available by
way of exchange, aggregating together, is not more
than 52 percent.

6. As the academic year 1995-96 has
commenced, it shall be binding upon the candidates
taking admission from the castes included in the
"Special Backward Category" to obtain from the
Competent Authority the Caste Certificate in the
Statement (? proforma) shown in Appendix -

13/June/1995, and to submit the same to the
concerned Head of the Institution upto 31 July,
1995. If the candidates from the said category failed
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
51 143011
to submit their respective Caste Certificates to the
Heads of the educational institutions upto the
aforesaid date, then they shall not have a right to
such reserved seats. This also should necessarily be
noted.

7. Director of Education (Higher Education),
Maharashtra State, Pune is requested to bring these
orders to the notice of the managing bodies of all
the educational institutions.

These orders are issued with the concurrence
of the General Administration Department and
Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports
Department.

By order and in the name of the Governor of
Maharashtra.

Sd/-

(T. B. Sen)
Deputy Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra"

28) Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Resolution, the
University issued the above numbered Circular on 13th July, 1995.

They are informed that the Government of
Maharashtra vide Resolution No. USG/1493/
(2428)/VISHI-4 dated 22nd June, 1995 (in Marathi)
has now directed that the University and its affiliated
colleges of Arts / Commerce / Science / Education /
Law / Engineering / Architecture / Pharmaceutical
Science and other equivalent course conducted by
other recognised educational institutions to reserve
52% of seats for backward classes instead of 50% for
admission in the respective courses as follows:-

3. They are further informed that the Government of
Maharashtra vide Resolution No. CBC
109/P.K.-86/Mawak-5 dated 16th June, 1994 (already
circulated) has partially accepted the principle of 'CREAMY
LAYER' as recommended by the Mandal Commission and
as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition
No. (Civil) 930/1900, Indira Sahni v/s. Union of India and
Others in case of communities coming under sub-clauses 5,
6 & 7 of para 2 above.

4. A copy of the Government Resolution No. USG/1493/
(2428)/VISHI-4 dated 22nd June, 1995 is enclosed as
Annexure 'A'.

5. They are also requested to maintain every year a record of
the statistics as to the (i) number of applications received
from SC/ST/DT/NT/OBC/SBC students, (ii) number of
students admitted from the SC/ST/DT/NT/OBC/SBC
category, (iii) number of students required to be admitted
according to the above percentage, (iv) total number of
students admitted every year (BC and non-BC), since this
information is required to be submitted every year to the
State Government, Director of Higher Education, Pune and
the University Grants Commission.

6. The Director, University Department of Chemical
Technology, Principal, Sri J.J. College of Architecture,
Director/Heads of the University Departments/Centres and
the Principals of constituent and affiliated colleges
conducting courses of studies in Arts/ Commerce / Science /
Education / Law / Engineering / Architecture /
Pharmaceutical Science and other equivalent courses
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
54 143011
conducted by other recognised educational institutions, are
required to make special efforts to fill in all the seats
reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Denotified
Tribes/Nomadic Tribes/Other Backward Classes/Special
Backward Category and maintain and send the statistics
without fail as mentioned in para 5, so as to facilitate the
B.C.Cell its onwards transmission to the State Government,
Director of Higher Education, Pune and the University
Grants Commission.

Sd/-

Bombay 400 032 (DR. JAIRAM CHAVAN)
18th July, 1995. REGISTRAR"
29)

Thereafter, in February, 1996, Government Resolution was
issued on 7th February, 1996 to amend clauses 4 and 5 of Government
Resolution dated 22nd June, 1995. This Government Resolution reads
thus:-

TRUE TRANSLATION - MARATHI TO ENGLISH
"Regarding reserving seats for "Special Backward
Category" in all the educational institutions under control of
Higher and Technical Education and Employment
Department ........

Government Corrigendum :- Revision in paragraph 4 and 5
of the Government Resolution, Higher and Technical
Education and Employment Department No. USG-1493/
(2428)/ UE-4, dated 22nd June, 1995, is made as follows :

2. Paragraph - 4 :- The said reservation shall be
coursewise in each of the institutions and the same shall be
for free and value based seats, in their respective
proportions.

Except the Technical Education Department,
unreserved seats coming under other Educational
Department should firstly be filled up. Among these, even
the backward class student shall be included as unreserved
candidate on the basis of merit. Such students should not be
included in the reservation. For this purpose, a question does
not at all arise to intimate his choice to consider his
admission as unreserved. Remaining seats should be filled
up as per reservation, while doing so if the proportion of the
backward class students become more than 52% in the
Educational Institutions then there shall be no objection
thereto.

The last sentence of paragraph 5, "However, while
making provision to fill up from other category by way of
exchange......., to ---------- is not more than 52 percent"
should be deleted fully.

4. This corrigendum is issued with the concurrence of
General Administration Department.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

57 143011
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Maharashtra.
Sd/-
(A. M. Bhattalwar)

Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra"

30) On the basis of the modified paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 1995, the University of Mumbai
issued circular on 29th March, 1996, which reads thus:-

1. Attention of the Director, University Department of
Chemical Technology (Autonomous), Principal, Sir J.J.
College of Architecture, Directors/Heads of University
Departments/Centres and the Principals of constituent and
affiliated colleges conducting courses of studies in
Arts/Commerce/Science/Education/Law/Engineering/Archi-
tecture /Pharmaceutical Science and other equivalent
courses conducted by other recognised educational
institution is invited to this office circular No.
BCC/29/301/1995 dated 18th July, 1995 directing them to
reserve 52% of seats in admission for Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Denotified Tribes/Nomadic
Tribes/Other Backward Classes/Special Backward Category.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

58 143011
They are informed that the Government of Maharashtra,
Higher & Technical Education and Employment Department
issued a Government corrigendum No. USG-1493/
(2428)/VISHI-4 dated 7th February, 1996 (in Marathi) (copy
enclosed) to para 4 and 5 of Government Resolution, Higher
& Technical Education and Employment Department,
Resolution No. USG-1493/ (2428)/VISHI-4 dated 22nd June,
1995. They are accordingly requested to take into account
the above corrigendum at the time of admission to various
courses of studies.

They are requested to maintain and send the statistical
information to the University as mentioned in para 5 and 6
of circular No. BCC/29/301 dated 18th July, 1995 so as to
facilitate the B.C. Cell (in) its onward transmission to the
State Government, Director of Higher Education and the
University Grants Commission.

The Principals of the affiliated colleges in Arts, Science, Commerce
and Law (5 years) are hereby informed that the procedure for
admission in Govt./Private aided/unaided, minority aided and minority
unaided colleges affiliated to this University is to be followed strictly
in accordance with this office Circular No. pmaÀ188/2003 idnaaMk 13 mao 2003.

Further, they are informed that considering the date of result of the
H.S.C. Examination (12th) has been declared on Friday, 27th May,
2011, the following shall be the Schedule date of admission of the
F.Y.B.A., F.Y.B.Sc. & F.Y.B.Com. including F.Y.B.M.M. /
F.Y.B.M.S. / F.Y.B.Sc.(I.T.), F.Y.B.Sc. (Computer Science),
F.Y.B.Com (Banking & Insurance), F.Y. B.Com (Accounting &
Finance), F.Y.B.Com (Financial Market), Law (5 years) course
for the academic year 2011-2012:-

The Principals are hereby requested to adhere to the above schedule of
dates and further details if any will be communicated to them shortly.
(Note- In case of untoward incident of collapse of transport system
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
60 143011
due to deluge or any such reasons allowance of time will be declared
by the University.)
MUMBAI-400 032 Prin. Dr. M.S.Kurhade
27th May, 2011. I/c. REGISTRAR.

To
..... " (emphasis supplied)

The circular issued by the University of Mumbai dated 13th May, 2003
referred to in the latest circular dated 27th May, 2011, in turn, refers to the
Government Resolution Nos. 2003/031/ 1-9/V.S.-8 dated 16th April,
2003. The said Government Resolution has been issued in compliance
with the decision of the Apex Court in T.M. Pai Foundation and other
connected cases, which, in turn, amongst others, provides for reservation
of seats for reserved categories, including in respect of private colleges.

In furtherance of the instructions issued by the University, the college,
before commencement of the admission process, issued prospectus.

The condition specified in the prospectus for admission to Five Years
Law Course (Exhibit 'F' to the petition) reads thus:-

"Admission to the Five Year Law Course.

A candidate passing the H.S.C. (10+2) examination
conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education, with minimum 45% marks at
the first attempt or any other examination recognised as
equivalent thereto by the University of Mumbai with the
minimum prescribed marks at the first attempt is eligible for
admission to the first Year of pre law course. The above
percentage of marks shall be relaxed by 5% for the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
61 143011
candidates belonging to reserved categories. Admission
will be given strictly on merit.

For candidates securing more than 40% but less than 45% of
marks at the respective qualifying examination (with further
5% relaxation for candidates belonging to SC/ST categories)
the University may conduct a Common Eligibility
Examination. The candidates passing in such examination
shall become eligible for admission for the respective Law
Courses, and may be admitted in any of the Law Colleges
conducting the respective Courses, subject to availability of
the seats in the college for the Course and the Class.

No student is allowed to keep terms for two different degree
courses simultaneously in the same academic year.

Procedure for seeking admission to the Five Year &
Three Year Courses.

Admission process for the first year of the Five Year Law
Course will commence immediately after the declaration of
H.S.C. results and in the case of Three Year Law Course,
after the declaration of graduation results.

Total seats available for 1st Year of B.L.S., LL.B. (Five
Years Law Course)
2 divisions aided --- 160 1 division unaided --- 80
Total seats available for 1st Year of LLB. (Three Years Law
Course)
4 divisions aided --- 320
There is 50% Reservation for Reserved Categories from
Maharashtra State as per the Government Resolution (G.R.)
The Prospectus and the Registration Forms will be available
at the College Office. The Registration Form, duly filled in,
should be submitted to the college within the prescribed
time. Thereafter, merit list of the selected candidates will be
displayed on the notice board as under -

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

62 143011
Five Year Law Course:

I (i) General Category of students from Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education.

50% Reserved Category from Maharashtra State as per the
G.R.

1. SC (Hindu & Baudha)

2. ST

3. Vimukta Jati

4. NTI

5. NT2 (Dhangar etc.)

6. NT3 (Vanjari etc.)

7. OBC

8. Special Backward Category

(iii) 3% seats reserved for the following categories:

1. Children of transferred Central/state Government
employees offers (sic)

2. Children of Serviceman/Ex-Serviceman.

3. Candidates who have excelled in sports or extra curricular
activities at the state/national/international level.

4. Physically handicapped/disabled students.

5. Widowed/Deserted girl student (self candidate).

6. Children/Grandchildren of freedom fighters."

32) According to the counsel for the University, the circulars
issued by the University from time to time do provide for reservation for
students belonging to reserved categories, in consonance with the
Government policy to provide for such reservation issued in exercise of
powers under Section 7(2) of the Act read with Section 5(15) of the Act.

Section 5 (15) specifies the powers and duties of the University to
supervise, control, regulate admission of students for various courses of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
63 143011
study in University Departments, conducted and affiliated colleges,
institutions, schools and recognised institutions. None of the above
circulars, much less the latest circular issued by the University on 27th
May, 2011 has been challenged by the petitioner in the former petition.

Merely taking ground in the writ petition that the reservation provided by
the Government Law College up to 50% seats for candidates belonging
to reserved categories is not backed by law, therefore, will have to be
stated to be rejected.

33) We shall now deal with the side arguments raised by the
petitioner in the former petition with regard to reservation. According to
the said petitioner, the reservation provided for widow / deserted girl
students (self candidates) is without application of mind. On this
assertion, the said petitioner seeks direction against the respondent-

college not to provide for reservation for widow / deserted girl students
(self candidates). We need not detain ourselves with this contention.

In that, it is common ground that no seat has been allocated to any
candidate belonging to the said category. We were informed that no such
application has been received. Even the merit lists and re-worked merit
lists produced before us do not refer to the said category. Therefore, we
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
64 143011
do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with the said ground, as
it does not arise for consideration for the present academic year.

34) The next argument of the petitioner is that the requirement
mentioned in the prospectus to avail of the said reserved category seat is
only on production of original Caste Certificate, which condition is not
consistent with the ruling of the Apex Court in Mahduri Patil's case.

This is a vague plea taken by the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate
from the record that the college has dispensed with production of "Caste
Validity Certificate" of the concerned candidate claiming reservation
against the seats ear-marked for reserved categories. Reliance placed on
one of the requirements of admission, to produce the original Caste
Certificate, to mean that it dispenses with the requirement of a "Caste
Validity Certificate" to be issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, is
misplaced.

35) It was then contended that the reservation is only in respect
of candidates belonging to reserved categories from Maharashtra State.

It is well established position that a candidate belonging to reserved
category in his State of origin is not entitled to claim admission against
reserved category in another State [see Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

65 143011
Seth G.S.Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130]. In any case, we refrain
to answer the academic question raised by the said petitioner, who has
failed to give any specific instances as to admissions of which students
made against reserved seats are illegal or contrary to the mandate of law
and especially when the said petitioner herself is not claiming admission
against the reserved category. Suffice it to observe that the college has
adhered to the direction issued by the University under Circular dated
27th May, 2011 which adopted the reservation policy of the State
Government and applied the same to admissions in the affiliated and
recognised colleges.

36) It was then contended on behalf of the said petitioner that
Ordinance 5077 merely provides for giving concession to the candidates
belonging to reserved categories in respect of the qualifying marks but
does not provide for any reservation. Even the prospectus reiterates the
same position. Ordinance 5077 reads thus:-

"A candidate for being eligible
• for admission to the First Semester of 3 years LL.B.

Degree Course must have passed/completed Degree
Examination in any Faculty of a recognised University or
equivalent qualification with minimum 45% of marks at
the qualifying examination if there is no Eligibility test
and, 40% of marks at the qualifying examination if there is
an Eligibility test. However the above percentage of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
66 143011
Marks shall be relaxed by 5% for the candidates belonging
to SC,ST categories.

• for admission to the First Semester of 5 years LL.B.

Degree Course must have passed/completed H.S.C.
Examination or equivalent qualification with minimum
45% of marks at the qualifying examination if there is no
Eligibility test and, 40% of marks at the qualifying
examination if there is an Eligibility test. However the
above percentage of marks shall be relaxed by 5% for the
candidates belonging to SC,ST categories."

37) Even this submission does not commend to us.

The provision such as Ordinance 5077 only governs the eligibility
criteria of the candidate, and cannot be construed to be a provision
regulating the other admission procedure as such. Indeed, only
candidates who are eligible as per this provision would be entitled to
pursue the course and their claim can be considered for admission while
preparing the merit lists of all the similarly placed eligible candidates.

Suffice it to observe that Ordinance 5077 is a provision limited to the
issue of the minimum eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by the aspiring
candidate. Similarly, the contents of the prospectus, on which much
emphasis has been placed by the said petitioner also does not take the
matter any further. As has been noticed earlier, the college has adhered
to the norms specified by the University regarding reservation, which is
in consonance with the policy of the State Government. That policy or
the directive issued by the University is not the subject-matter of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
67 143011
challenge before us. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the
argument regarding irregularity or illegality in providing for 50%
reservation for candidates belonging to reserved categories by the
Government Law College cannot be countenanced.

38) That takes us to the next challenge of the petitioner in the
former writ petition. At the outset, we may mention that respondent-

Government Law College is a Government College. The State
Government bears the financial burden of running the said college. It is
well established position that, if the State Government bears the financial
burden of running the Government College, it is entitled to lay down
criteria for admission in its own college, and to decide the sources from
which admission would be made, provided, of course, such classification
is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable connection with
the object sought to be achieved. So long as there is no discrimination
within each of such sources, the validity of the guidelines laying down
such sources cannot be successfully challenged. Further, the candidates
who have passed the qualifying examination from "a University" (read
Maharashtra Board) would form a class by themselves as distinguished
from those candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from
the other Universities (read Boards other than Maharashtra Board)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
68 143011
[See D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore & Ors., AIR 1971 SC
1762]. This exposition will have to be borne in mind while examining
the grievance of the petitioner in the former petition.

39) Reverting to the second challenge, it is argued that the
college has misdirected itself in preparing the merit lists of candidates on
faculty-wise basis. According to the said petitioner, that procedure is not
backed by law.

The counsel appearing for the students, who have
already been admitted and/or likely to be affected by any change, on the
other hand, have placed reliance on the Government Order dated 11st
February, 2004, whereunder, the Advisory Committee was appointed by
the State Government to exercise the powers specified under Section
85(5) of the Act. The said Government Order (Exhibit 'E' to Chamber
Summons No. 205 of 2011) reads thus:-

3 The above referred New Committee Body should be in
existence form the Government order and its duration is at 5
years. That for appointment/selection of 3 members from
the Teachers members and 1 member from employees of
colleges should be appointed, regarding the same the
Principal, Government Law Colleges, Mumbai the requisite
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
72 143011
steps should be taken. The above Consultant Committee
minimum 2 meetings should be taken in a year.

4. The selected committee or body's duty is as per Section
85(5) of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (the
Committee's duties and powers is enclosed herewith)

5. The expenses of Committee's meeting and Non-
Government members, the same is as per fund which is
granted to the Government College, Mumbai/ sudden Aided.

local Managing or Advisory Committee for college or institution
managed and maintained by the Government should be appointed.

The powers and duties of the said Committee are provided in sub-section
(5) thereof. Amongst others, in terms of Section 85(5)(f), the Committee
is expected to advise the principal regarding the intake capacity of
various classes, preparation of time tables, distribution of the available
teaching workload and such other matters relating to internal
management of the college and discipline of the college students as may
be referred to it by the principal, from time to time. As per Section 85(5)

(j), the said committee has to perform such other duties and exercise such
other powers as may be entrusted by the management and the university.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

73 143011
The purpose of appointing Advisory Committee for the Government
College is to aid and assist the Government to manage and maintain its
college.

41) The Committee so appointed, in its meeting held on 13th
April, 2005, was required to discuss the issue regarding streamlining the
admission process faculty-wise to advise the principal and management
of the college in that regard. The relevant extract of the minutes of the
meeting held by the said Committee on 13th April, 2005 (Exhibit 'F' to
Chamber Summons No. 205 of 2011) is reproduced thus:-

"A meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on
13.4.2005 in the Principal's Chamber. The following
members were present.

The Principal welcomed the members
The following matters were discussed.

AGENDA: Procedure for admission
The Principal apprised the members about the admission
procedure and informed them that a common merit list was
prepared for Arts, Science and Commerce faculties.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::

74 143011
After discussion, Justice Dhanuka pointed out that taking
into account the ground realities, it is difficult for students of
the Arts faculty to score a high percentage. Example - a
student who opts for Sociology or English though equally
competent cannot score a percentage equivalent to his
Science or Commerce counterpart.

In view of these differences it was suggested that 25% each
should be reserved for Arts, Science and Commerce
respectively and 25% should be put under the "Residuary"
category for other faculties like Medicine, Management,
Engineering etc.
Further employed students, by mere ground of employment
cannot be deprived of admission. They should be treated on
par. However repeaters, consistent drop outs with long gaps
should be discouraged. If a student has not continued studies
year after year, this factor is to be taken into account and
should not be readmitted especially if there are limited
vacancies. Regular students should be given preference.

The Principal informed the Committee that the college
followed the practice of asking for a cut off which was 5%
higher for students from other Universities or Boards. After
due deliberation, it was suggested that the College should
follow the guidelines followed for students of LL.M. Justice
Dhanuka suggested that a letter about the procedure could be
taken for the University of Mumbai and adopted.

Advocate Chavan suggested that CET examination could be
held. The Principal and other members of the teaching staff
were of the opinion that it is difficult to introduce CET as
the College was affiliated to the University of Mumbai and
cannot have its own CET. (However the Principal assured
the Committee that she would explore this avenue for future
admission with the University of Mumbai for future
admissions to Law.)
Advocate Chavan was of the opinion that CET would enable
a premier institute like Government Law College to maintain
high standards.

RESOLUTION: 1) Resolved unanimously that 25% each
seats be reserved for Arts, Science and Commerce.
Resolved that the minimum cut off percentage for students
of the Arts faculty (open category) should be 65% or more in
order to minimize the disparity between the Commerce,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
75 143011
Science and Arts faculties. The remaining 25% seats be
termed Residuary seats and be given to other faculties like
Management, Medicine etc. on merits.

2) Resolved unanimously that employed students be
admitted but such employed students who discontinue
studies year after year, be not readmitted if there is no
vacancy.

3) Resolved that for students from other Universities, the
pattern followed for LL.M. Admissions by the University of
Mumbai be followed.

4) Resolved that at least for this academic year no CET
examination be held.

........"

42) The decision so taken by the Committee is founded on the
Guidelines prescribed for LL.M. Course by the University of Mumbai.

That was necessitated, as it was noticed that the admission to Law
Degree Course was taken by candidates coming from different streams.

Each stream ought to constitute a class by itself. The Committee noticed
that the students of the Arts Faculty, though no less competent, cannot
score percentage equivalent to his Science or Commerce counterpart.

Moreover, when the admissions were to be granted from multiple sources
as in the case of LL.M. admissions, the Committee decided to adopt the
same procedure. The submission of the petitioner in the former petition
is that the Committee could not have decided such procedure on its own.

In the first place, as noticed earlier, the respondent-college is a
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:19 :::
76 143011
Government-funded college. The Government appointed a committee to
exercise powers so as to advise the administration / management of the
college on relevant matters, which included regulating admissions to the
college. It has, therefore, laid down criteria for admission to law course,
which, essentially, is founded on the Guidelines issued by the University
of Mumbai for LL.M. Course. Neither the said Guidelines nor the
decision of the Committee are subject-matter of challenge in the present
petition. The college, during the admission process, has merely adhered
to the same norms.

43) It is also noticed that the University of Mumbai issued a
circular as recently as on 15th July, 2011, which is at Exhibit 'G' to
Chamber Summons No. 205 of 2011. The same reads thus:-

"UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI
No.UG/212 of 2011
CIRCULAR:-

A reference is invited to the Ordinances, Regulations and
syllabi relating to the LL.B. degree course (Three Years
Degree Course) vide this office Circular No. UG/368 of
2001, dated 20th October, 2001 and the Head, University
Department of Law and the Principals of the affiliated
Colleges in Law are hereby informed that the
recommendation made by the Board of Studies in Law at its
meeting held on 19th April, 2011 has been accepted by the
Academic Council at its meeting held on 25th May, 2011
vide item No. 4.106 and that, in accordance therewith, the
total intake of the students to the first year of the three years
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
77 143011
LL.B. Programme is divided into equal proportion is as
follows:

the total intake of the students to the first year of Three Years LL.B.

Programme in the equal proportion, faculty-wise. The above circular
has been issued on the basis of decision of the Academic Council of the
University recorded in the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 25th
May, 2011. The said Resolution reads thus:-

"4.106
It was resolved that the recommendation made by the Board
of Studies in Law at its meeting held on 19th April, 2011 be
accepted and that in accordance therewith, the total intake of
the students to the first year of the Three years LL.B.
Programme is to be divided into equal proportion as
follows:- 1/3rd intake from Arts and Fine Arts Faculties
jointly, 1/3rd intake from Science, Technology and Medicine
Faculties jointly, and 1/3rd intake from Commerce Faculty."

Indeed, this decision of the University is only with regard to admission in
first year of Three years Law Course. There is no reason why the same
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
78 143011
pattern ought not to be applied and will not be good even to admissions
of five years law degree course - as in the case of three years law course
and for LL.M. Course.

45) Considering the above, so long as the petitioner is not in a
position to demonstrate that the classification is arbitrary or irrational and
unreasonable or has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, we
fail to understand as to how the preparation of faculty-wise merit list can
be faulted with. The decision taken by the Committee appointed by the
State Government under the statute was competent to take such decision.

The decision so taken by the said Committee is not the subject-matter of
challenge. That decision is resonated even in the decision of the
University of Mumbai in respect of filling up total intake of the students
to first year of the three Years LL.B. Course in equal ratio. In our
opinion, therefore, the preparation of merit lists by the college on faculty-

wise basis, which is in adherence to the instructions issued by the
Committee cannot be taken exception to.

46) The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Jain & Ors. v.

Union of India & Ors., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654, has expounded
that the admission may depart from the principle of selection based on
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
79 143011
merits where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of bringing about
real equality of opportunity between those who are unequals. It went
on to observe that the challenge under the Constitution is a dynamic
concept which must cover every process of equalisation. Equality must
become a living reality for the large masses of the people. Further, those
who are unequal, in fact, cannot be treated by identical standards; that
may be equality in law, but it would certainly not be real equality.

De jure equality must ultimately find its raison d'etre in de facto
equality.

47) As of now, neither the Act, Statutes or Ordinances provide
for specific method to be followed for preparation of merit list of
candidates by the concerned colleges. No such provision is brought to
our notice, except Ordinances 5077 and 5078. We have already dealt
with the efficacy of those Ordinances. The same cannot be considered as
providing any guidance or direction on the subject of preparation of merit
list of candidates and apportionment of total intake of seats of the
college, one way or the other. In absence of such provision, the Advisory
Committee was competent to decide on those matters. Indeed, the
procedure must ensure that it should not result in any discrimination
amongst the candidates from same sources. In the present case, the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
80 143011
college has merely followed the decision of the Advisory Committee to
treat the candidates belonging to respective faculty as a separate class
and prepare inter se merit list of such class and to provide for and specify
the total number of seats for each of those classes. The procedure of
preparing separate merit list of respective faculty is to achieve real
equality as those candidates cannot be treated by identical standards. In
our opinion, therefore, the challenge of the petitioner regarding
preparation of faculty-wise merit list is without any substance.

48) That takes us to the next challenge of the petitioner in the
former petition. According to the said petitioner, the deduction of 5%
marks of the candidates, who have passed the qualifying examination
from the Boards other than the Maharashtra Board is without authority of
law. Even this submission does not commend to us. We have already
adverted to the background in which the Local Advisory Committee of
the college was appointed by the State Government under Section 85 of
the Act and its competence to enunciate the procedure of preparation of
merit lists of the candidates aspiring to seek admission. The said
Committee, in its meeting held on 13th April, 2005, considered the issue
regarding deduction of 5% marks of students who have passed the
qualifying examination from Boards other than Maharashtra Board.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::

81 143011
The said decision has been enforced by the college. That decision of the
Committee has not been challenged before us. Indeed, attempt was made
by the counsel for the said petitioner to contend that the Advisory Board
has acted in excess of authority given to it by the Government.

However, no such case is specifically pleaded even in the amended writ
petition. That being a mixed question of fact and law, it was necessary
for the petitioner to plead the same. Be that as it may, it was contended
that all the members of the Advisory Committee who are shown as
present in the meeting, have not signed the minutes. As a matter of fact,
no such grievance has been made in the writ petition. In any case, to re-

assure ourselves, we called upon the counsel for the college to produce
the original record. We have perused the original record. In the first
place, there is intrinsic material to indicate that the meeting was held and
was attended by the seven members referred to in the minutes. Two
other members, who could not attend, were granted leave of absence.

Indeed, out of the seven members present, only signatures of four
members are found at the foot of the minutes. But from the minutes, it
is noted that the other members, including the Chairman, participated in
the discussion. Suffice it to observe that the minutes of the meeting
dated 13th April, 2005, which has been annexed to Chamber Summons
No. 205 of 2011 at Exhibit 'F', is not challenged in the petition. Besides
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
82 143011
those minutes, the minutes of meeting held on 17th April, 2006 by the
Local Management Committee also specifically deal with the issue of
stipulating 5% deduction of marks obtained by the candidates who have
passed the qualifying examination from Boards other than Maharashtra
Board. The relevant extract of the said minutes reads thus:-

"A meeting of the Local Management Committee was held
on 17.4.2006 at 5.30 p.m. In the Principal's chamber. The
following members were present -

1) Dr. V.J. Kulkarni, Joint Director of Education - Chairman

2) Principal (Mrs.) P.R. Rao - Member

3) Justice D.R. Dhanuka

4) Sr Counsel Adv. Rafiq Dada

5) Adv. Rajiv Chavan

6) Prof. (Mrs.) G.N. Parawati

7) Prof. P.K. Mokal

8) Prof. (Mrs.) R.S. Ratho

9) Mrs. S.G. Dalvi
The minutes of the meeting held on 7th April, 2005 were read
and confirmed. Thereafter, the meeting commenced.
.........

ADMISSION TO V YEARS LAW COURSE:

A discussion took place amongst the members of the
committee with regard to admission to the 1st year of five
year course where securing admission to Government Law
College was very competitive.

In view of the legal standing of a premier law institution like
Government Law College, Advocate Rajiv Chavan
suggested once again that a CET be held. The Principal
informed him that as we are affiliated to Mumbai University
we cannot have our own admission procedure by holding
CET. The Joint Director of Education suggested that a
common merit list of students from Maharashtra Board and
other Boards be put up and a viva be taken to give admission
in the final stage. Mrs. Ratho pointed out the difficulties in
this procedure as it would encourage people to come with
recommendations. The Principal also pointed out that law
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
83 143011
admission may also be steeped in legal controversies like
engineering/medical admissions. Sr. Counsel Rafique Dada
asked if we had any information of Government Law
Colleges in other States and the procedure followed therein.

The Joint Director & Principal did not have any detailed
information in this regard. Further Government Law
College is the only Government College for Law in
Maharashtra.

Letter dated 9/11/2005 from the Bar Council of India was
read over. Principal explained the procedure followed last
year in granting admission to the 1st year of five years law
course. The Principal also pointed out that from 1996 the
college had followed the practice of stipulating 5% higher
cut off percentage for students from other Boards. Details
of the admission (V yrs. Course) of students to the First
Year in 2005 were read out. Arts/Science/Commerce
streams had equal number of seats as decided in the earlier
meeting. The details of admission in the year 2005 are as
follows:-

Faculty No. of seats Maharashtra Board Other Board
Cut off percentage Cut off percentage
Total seats (open category) - 80
Arts 26 75.33% (16) 80% (10)
Science 25 82.17% (18) 85.80% (7)
Commerce 26 80.67% (16) 85.60% (10)
Defence quota ---- 1
Ex-Serviceman ---- 1
Handicapped ---- 1
Sr. Counsel Mr. Rafique Dada was of the opinion that this
was reasonable classification as academic excellence was the
only criterion. In view of the above fact the committee felt
that the practice followed since the year 1996 of stipulating
5% higher for students of other Boards be continued and the
faculty-wise allocations of seats also be confirmed. The
committee passed the following resolution -

RESOLUTION Resolved that the 5% higher cut off
percentage prescribed for students from Boards other than
Maharashtra Board, being based on academic excellence and
not on the fact of residence is reasonable and be continued.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::

84 143011
With this practice a student from Mumbai who has given an
examination of any Board other than Maharashtra Board will
be required to secure a higher cut off percentage. As this
practice is based on academic excellence, such a student
cannot complain of discrimination. It is reasonable
classification and not based on residence of a student. It
does not make a discrimination between residents of
Mumbai or/and Maharashtra and other States of India.

.... "

49) It is noticed that, since year 1996, the college has been
following the norm of deducting 5% marks of candidates who have
passed qualifying examination from Boards other than the Maharashtra
Board. As aforesaid, the above-said decisions of the committee are not
challenged in the petition.

50) The position emerging from the re-worked merit list for
Academic Year 2011-12 prepared by the college without deducting 5%
marks of the candidates, who have passed the qualifying examination
from Boards other than the Maharashtra Board, reinforces the appre-

hension expressed by the Committee. In that, in the re-worked merit list
of open category - Arts Faculty (without deducting 5%), the first and the
only candidate to secure admission from Maharashtra Board finds place
at position as low as at serial No. 35. The said student has secured 90%
marks in Marathi and stood 1st in Mumbai Division. She has secured
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
85 143011
aggregate 85.5% marks in the 12th Standard examination conducted by
the Maharashtra Board. That means, the rest of the 34 candidates placed
higher in merit of Arts Faculty as per the re-worked merit list (without
deducting 5% marks) are all from Boards other than Maharashtra Board

- not necessarily residing in Mumbai and/or Maharashtra. Similarly, in
Commerce Faculty re-worked list of open category (without deducting
5% marks), the first candidate from Maharashtra Board is at Serial No. 8.

Only that candidate from Maharashtra Board will get admission as per
the re-worked merit list of Commerce Faculty (open category) and rest of
the seats will go to candidates from Boards other than Maharashtra
Board. Similar pattern emerges even in the re-worked merit list of open
category - Science Faculty (without deducting 5%). The first candidate
from Maharashtra Board, who finds place in the said list, is at serial No.

12. The only other candidate from Maharashtra Board to be admitted as
per this list is at serial No. 32. Rest of the seats out of the total seats
earmarked for Science Faculty (open category) will be cornered by
candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from Boards
other than Maharashtra Board. This disparity is still worst, considering
the fact that the number of students appearing through Maharashtra
Board are substantially high, as compared to the negligible number of
candidates residing in Mumbai / Maharashtra appearing through Boards
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
86 143011
other than Maharashtra Board. The glimpse of those figures at the level
of 10th standard examination is already taken note of in paragraph 2 of
the reported decision in the case of Fransisco D. Luia (supra), reported
in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 569. Similar pattern would prevail in the 12th
standard Board examination.

51) Notably, about eleven students of Arts Faculty, three from
Science Faculty and twelve from Commerce Faculty who have passed
their qualifying examination from Maharashtra Board and admitted /
likely to be admitted will be affected by the re-worked merit lists of open
category prepared, without deducting 5% marks of candidates who have
passed their examination from Boards other than Maharashtra Board.

Thus, only one candidate from Arts Faculty, two from Science Faculty
and one from Commerce Faculty who have passed the qualifying
examination from Maharashtra Board will get admission out of the total
seats earmarked for respective faculties in open category; and rest of the
seats thereof will be cornered by candidates from Boards other than
Maharashtra Board, if the policy of deduction of 5% marks was to be
withdrawn / cancelled. This clearly indicates the palpable disparity,
which was required to be corrected by deducting 5% marks of the
candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from Boards
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
87 143011
other than Maharashtra Board. Therefore, such a correctional course
cannot be stated to be unreasonable, irrational or having no nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. As is observed in Dr. Chanchala's
case (supra), so long as there is no discrimination within each of such
sources, the validity of the procedure laying down such sources cannot
be successfully challenged. The candidates passing through qualifying
examination held by the Local Board, i.e., Maharashtra Board, as per this
policy, are treated as a class by themselves as distinguished from the
candidates passing the qualifying examination through the other Boards.

Such classification has reasonable nexus to the object of equalising the
opportunity for candidates who have passed the qualifying examination
from Maharashtra Board, by deducting 5% marks of candidates
belonging to the Boards other than Maharashtra Board. As a result, we
hold that the petitioner in the former petition ought to fail in the
challenge even to the process of deduction of 5% marks of those who
have passed the qualifying examination from Boards other than the
Maharashtra Board.

52) Even if we were to agree with the grievance of the
petitioner in the former petition that the process adopted by the college of
preparing the merit lists was improper for one or the other reason stated
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
88 143011
by the petitioner, we have no hesitation in taking the view that it would
not be proper for this Court to upset the admission process already
completed by the college at this distance of time. The college has
already commenced from 4th July, 2011 and the candidates who have
been admitted have completed the necessary formalities of admission.

The interveners / applicants have rightly pressed into service the
observation of the then Chief Justice Shri Swatanter Kumar, which has
been concurred to by the third Judge Shri Justice J.N. Patel (as he then
was), in the case of Francisco D. Luis (supra), that, once large number
of students have already been given admission in different colleges, and
the process of admission, if directed to be re-opened, would result in
delay of academic course, avoidable public expense, inconvenience to
students caused due to mid-stream change. Besides, we cannot be
oblivious to the assertion made on affidavit by the interveners /
applicants as well as the petitioners in companion writ petition that, if the
merit list was to be re-worked and the admissions already granted to
them were to be disturbed, those students, in whose favour, indefeasible
rights have been crystallised, would suffer serious prejudice. In that,
most of them, having secured high percentage of marks, had a fair
opportunity to take admission in other colleges, including to other
professional courses, which they have given up in the fond hope of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
89 143011
pursuing Five Years Law Course from Government Law College.

If they were to be now removed from this college, they would neither be
able to get admission to other courses, nor to any law college of similar
repute as that of Government Law College, and may also fall short of the
required attendance for the respective semesters, thereby suffer loss of
one academic year. Even for this reason, the question of acceding to the
petitioner's prayer of directing the respondent-college to undertake fresh
exercise for finalising the admission to first year of Five Years Law
Course will have to be rejected. We would, therefore, decline to
exercise our discretionary jurisdiction at the instance of the said
petitioner on the ground of laches.

53) The counsel for the said petitioner, relying on the decision
of the Apex Court in Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. v. GIS Jose
& Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 611, submits that the Court should not show
misplaced sympathies, as the Courts have repeatedly held that
educational standards should not be compromised. In the first place, the
dictum in the said decision is on the facts of that case where the
respondent secured admission to M.Sc. Computer Science course, even
though she had secured less marks than the minimum cut-off marks.

Thus, the Courts proceeded on the finding of fact that the respondent was
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
90 143011
ineligible to be admitted to the said course. On that basis, her admission
came to be set aside. In this case, we have already noticed that each of
the students admitted by the college or likely to be admitted fulfils the
eligibility criteria. Further, the classification on the basis of faculty-wise
or, for that matter, deduction of 5% marks of candidates from Boards
other than Maharashtra Board is not unreasonable, or irrational.

Rather, it has nexus with the object sought to be achieved in creating a
level field amongst the students coming from different streams and
sources. Be that as it may, the counsel for the applicants / interveners
has placed reliance on the decision in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.

Karnataka University & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448, to contend that, even
in the case of admission granted to ineligible candidate to Engineering
Degree Course, the Court protected the interest of the student, as the
lapse was of the Principal of the College in granting him admission. It is
not necessary to dilate on this contention any further for the reasons
already recorded above.

54) Insofar as the petitioner in the former petition, she has
passed out 12th standard examination from CBSE Board in
Commerce Faculty. In the faculty-wise list (open category), without
deducting 5% marks, as prepared by the respondent-college (on the basis
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
91 143011
that she has, in fact, secured 88.20% marks), her name in the re-worked
Commerce Faculty list appears at Serial No. 101. It is not the case of the
said petitioner that any other candidate from Commerce Faculty, who has
passed the qualifying examination from Board other than Maharashtra
Board, having secured lesser marks than the marks secured by her, is
being preferred by the respondent or is likely to be given admission. In
absence thereof, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the said
petitioner.

55) We place on record the statement made by the counsel for
the respondent-college that, as on 14th July, 2011, total 27 seats were
vacant and were to be filled in by candidates as per the existing (already
notified) merit lists, but, because of the order dated 14th July, 2011, the
college proceeded to keep the admissions of the remaining candidates in
the said merit lists in abeyance. In addition to the said 27 vacancies,
another six seats have fallen vacant because of the withdrawal of
admission by concerned candidates. Thus, in all, 33 seats are vacant, and
will be filled up, in addition to 207 already admitted students, which
include students belonging to reserved categories. In view of the opinion
expressed by us as recorded above, the remaining 33 vacant seats will
have to be now filled up by the respondent-college in accordance with
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:20 :::
92 143011
the existing merit lists, and not the re-worked merit lists. Further, the
candidates who have failed to take admission, in spite of their name
appearing in the earlier merit lists notified by the college, cannot be
considered against the 33 vacancies or any future vacancy that may arise.

For, those candidates did not turn up for completing the admission
procedure within the specified time and thus have given up their claim.

Accordingly, the 33 vacancies and/or any future vacancy in the
respondent-college will have to be filled up as per the merit position of
the existing or latest merit lists of the college, and not the re-worked
merit lists.

56) Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-

(1) Writ Petition No. 1430 of 2011 is dismissed
with costs.

(2) The accompanying four Chamber Summonses,
being Chambers Summonses Nos. 201, 205, 206
and 207 of 2011, respectively, are disposed of in
view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 1430 of
2011.